West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1887-08-05
DISCUSSION OF PROHIBITION
Copied nom weIIsburg Herald.

Our good friend of the WEST VA.
DEMocRAT does not seem disposed to
discuss the Prohibition Amendment,
pure and simple, as we understood
was the original agreement, but pre-
fers to wander off into the discussion
of matters, which although they
may have bearing upon the Ques-
tion, are too remote and sublimated
to be of much practical utility in
enabling people to make up their
minds as to how they are going to
vote on Prohibition. He prefers to
discuss personal liberty"-the
right a man has to indulge in 'per-
sonal habits or conduct" that do
mot interfere with the rights Of his
neighbor," something that is not
named in the proposed amendment,
and that we, for our part, do not feel
called upon to discuss, in the least.
He should, in good faith, have
copied the proposed amendment as
he found it in the Herald, insomuch
rs it was not only a material point
of our rejoinder, but would have en-
abled his readers to see for them
selves that there is nothing about
personal liberty in the matter that
is to be voted upon. That amend
ment deals with "the manufacture
Of and traffic iR intoxicating Ii
quorS," and says not word about
interfering, in any way, with per-
sOnal liberty. So far as personal
/ liberty is concerned, after the
Amendment is adopted and the Leg
lslature enacts laws with reference
to it, if any man can get the liquor,
there will be nothing in those laws
to interfere with his personal liberty
to get blind drunk, any more than
there is now, or than there will be to
limit his supply of tobacco or any
other luxury or necessary OF life.
The laws so enacted, will very prob
ably interfere with the supply but
will not restrict, probably any more
than they do now, mans personal
liberty to get drunk if he can and
wants to. This is plain distinc
tion that it is very convenient for
the opponents of prohibitory legis-
lation to dodge, but it can't be done
by refusing to publish the Amend
ment as proposed; nor can any peo-
pie be blinded or misled by blather,
on so plain matter. Indeed about
a good an answer as we might want
to make would be to stop right here,
and allow them simply to draw con-
clusions, the tenor q which would
most probably be, that insOmuch rs
our friend fails to meet the issue on
the square, he can't.
On the personal liberty subject,
we have only to say, that we adhere
to our proposition that Local Op-
tion" does not "beg the entire ques-
ton" If one citizen of q town may
say that another citizen Of the same
town may not do this or that, by
what process of hair splitting can it
/ be shown that the citizens of one
town or county may not say that the
citizens of another town or county
may or may not do thus and so.
The principle of local option and the
principle of prohibition is precisely
I the same and no man can defend To-
cal option on principle and at the
same time constantly oppose prohi-
bition. Neither local option or pro.
I hibition, if we understand it, under
takes to deal with personal liberty"
as it is defined above. nor will the
sane advocate of local option or the
advocate of prohibition claim that
indulgence in the drink habit is an
indulgence that does not interfere
with the rights Of others than the
persons indu!ging. Common intelli-
gence, common observation and COM
mon sense will settle that. That is
what we meant by what our neigh
/ Dor designates as the ''eXact point
| for discussion"-we maintain that
"ORe man may RIGHTFULLY compel
another to lice up to the rUle Of
right"
We do not propose to follow him
into an extended essay on govern
ment, but we do say that righteous
government can be maintained on no
other principle, the views of our
/ friend and Herr Most to the contra
ry Notwithstanding,
Prohibition is justified on this
principle and upon no other, and
whenever our friend can show that
one man or dozen cannot TighDHl-
| Tn compel another or another dozen
to live up to the rule of right, if they
have the physical force, then we will
acknowledge not only that prohibi-
tion is wrong but that all govern
ment is folly. We know no tribunal
to determine what is right other than
she majority, especially in Repub-
lican form of government as is this
under which we live.
Of course it is desirable in order
4bot ,rObibition may he effective